Publication Ethics

Ar-Riyadhiyyat: Jurnal Pendidikan Matematika is committed to upholding the highest standards of publication ethics. The journal follows the Core Practices and guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). All parties involved in the publication process (authors, editors, reviewers, and the publisher) are expected to observe the ethical standards described on this page.

Quick links:

Duties of Editors, Reviewers, Authors, and Publisher

 

Authorship Criteria

Authorship confers credit and carries responsibility. To be listed as an author, a person must meet all of the following criteria:

  1. made a substantial contribution to the conception or design of the study, or to the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data;
  2. drafted the manuscript or revised it critically for important intellectual content;
  3. approved the final version to be published; and
  4. agreed to be accountable for all aspects of the work, ensuring that questions about its accuracy or integrity are appropriately investigated and resolved.

Contributions and acknowledgments. Each manuscript must include an author contribution statement in the Declarations section, describing what each author did (use of the CRediT contributor roles is encouraged). People who contributed to the work but do not meet the criteria above, including those who provided language editing, technical help, or general supervision, should be named in the Acknowledgments with their permission.

Corresponding author. One author is designated as the corresponding author and is responsible for communication with the journal and for ensuring that all co-authors have seen and approved the manuscript and its submission.

Unacceptable authorship practices. The journal does not accept ghost authorship (omitting a person who meets the criteria), guest or gift authorship (listing a person who does not meet the criteria), or the listing of authors without their knowledge and consent. Generative AI tools cannot be listed as authors, as described in the Generative AI Policy.

Changes to the author list. Any request to add, remove, or reorder authors before acceptance must be sent to the editorial office in writing, with the reason for the change and written agreement from all authors, including the person added or removed. After acceptance, changes are considered only for exceptional and well-justified reasons. After publication, a change is made only through a published correction. Where authors disagree, the editors may suspend the review or publication process until the dispute is resolved, and may refer the matter to the authors’ institution(s).

Plagiarism Policy

Definition. Plagiarism is the use of another person’s words, ideas, data, figures, or other material without appropriate attribution. It includes copying text verbatim, paraphrasing without citation, presenting translated text as original, and reusing one’s own previously published work without disclosure or citation (self-plagiarism or text recycling). The journal treats plagiarism as serious research misconduct.

Screening. Every submitted manuscript is checked with Turnitin before it is sent for peer review. The editors review the similarity report in detail. The similarity index is an indicator for editorial judgment and not, by itself, a verdict of plagiarism. The editors consider where the overlap occurs, how it is attributed, and whether it comes from a single source or from many small matches. Bibliographies and properly quoted and cited passages are not counted against the author. Revised manuscripts may be re-screened.

Similarity threshold. The journal accepts an overall similarity index of 25% or lower for manuscripts to proceed to peer review, provided the overlap is properly cited or consists of common phrases, standard terminology, or descriptions of established methods. Manuscripts with an overall similarity above 25% are returned to the authors for revision before review begins.

Finding after editorial review of the similarity report Action
Overall similarity of 25% or lower, with overlap that is properly cited or consists of common phrases and standard terminology The manuscript proceeds to peer review.
Overall similarity of 25% or lower, but the editors find uncited copying of text, data, or figures The manuscript is returned to the authors for correction, or rejected if the problem is extensive.
Overall similarity above 25% The manuscript is returned to the authors without peer review, with a summary of the report, and may be resubmitted after revision. It is screened again on resubmission.
Extensive or deliberate plagiarism, or undisclosed duplicate publication The manuscript is rejected. The editors may notify the authors’ institution(s) and decline future submissions from the authors involved.

Related work by the authors. Authors must disclose in the manuscript, and in the cover note at submission, any thesis or dissertation, preprint, conference paper, or other earlier version from which the manuscript is derived. Disclosed and cited overlap with such sources is evaluated by the editors on its merits.

Plagiarism found after publication. Allegations of plagiarism in a published article are handled under the Allegation of Research Misconduct procedure. Depending on the outcome, the journal publishes a correction or an expression of concern, or retracts the article, as described in Correction and Retraction.

Conflict of Interest

A conflict of interest exists when a financial, personal, professional, institutional, or other relationship could, or could appear to, influence the conduct, review, or reporting of research. The journal asks all parties to disclose such conflicts, and a disclosed conflict does not by itself lead to rejection.

  • Authors must declare funding sources and any relevant financial or non-financial interests in the Declarations section of the manuscript. If there are none, the manuscript must say so explicitly.
  • Reviewers must decline an invitation if they have a conflict of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, financial, or other relationships with the authors or institutions involved, and must disclose any conflict that emerges during the review.
  • Editors must recuse themselves from handling a manuscript when they have a conflict of interest, and the manuscript is assigned to another editor.
  • Manuscripts submitted by editors, editorial board members, or journal staff are handled by an editor who has no association with the submitting person, and that person has no access to the review process or the decision for that manuscript. The published article states that the author is a member of the journal’s editorial team.
  • Funders and sponsors have no role in editorial decisions.

If an undisclosed conflict of interest comes to light after publication, the journal follows the procedure described in Correction and Retraction, which may include a correction or an expression of concern.

Allegation of Research Misconduct

Research and publication misconduct includes fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, unjustified authorship, undisclosed conflicts of interest, duplicate submission or publication, manipulation of the peer review process, and breaches of research ethics. The journal takes every allegation seriously, whether it concerns a submitted manuscript or a published article, and whether it is raised by a reviewer, reader, author, or institution.

How to report. Allegations may be sent to the editorial office at [email protected]. Please include the article or manuscript concerned and as much supporting evidence as possible. Anonymous allegations are considered when they are accompanied by sufficient verifiable evidence.

How the journal responds.

  1. The editorial office acknowledges receipt within 7 working days.
  2. The Editor-in-Chief makes an initial assessment of whether the allegation is credible and falls within the journal’s remit. If the allegation concerns the Editor-in-Chief, another member of the editorial board, appointed by the publisher, takes over the case.
  3. The authors are informed of the concern and given the opportunity to respond with explanations and evidence.
  4. Where necessary, the editors seek advice from independent experts or the editorial board, and may ask the authors’ institution or the relevant ethics committee to investigate.
  5. The journal follows the relevant COPE flowcharts throughout and makes a decision based on the evidence.

Possible outcomes include no action, a request for clarification, a correction, an expression of concern, rejection of the manuscript, retraction of the article, notification of the authors’ institution or funder, and declining future submissions from the authors involved. Published outcomes follow Correction and Retraction.

Confidentiality. The identities of those who report allegations, and the details of ongoing investigations, are kept confidential and shared only with those who need to know in order to resolve the case.

Correction and Retraction

The journal follows the COPE Retraction Guidelines. The following types of post-publication notice are used:

  • Correction (erratum or corrigendum). Published when an article contains an error, introduced by the journal (erratum) or by the authors (corrigendum), that does not invalidate the findings. A correction notice is published and the article is updated or linked to the notice.
  • Expression of concern. Published when there is credible evidence of possible misconduct or serious error but an investigation is not yet complete, or when the evidence is inconclusive and the authors’ institution is unable to complete an investigation.
  • Retraction. Issued when the findings are seriously unreliable because of misconduct or honest error, when the work is plagiarized or duplicated, when ethical approval or consent was lacking, or when authorship or conflicts of interest were seriously misrepresented. The decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief after consultation with the editorial board and following the investigation described above.
  • Withdrawal. Authors may withdraw a manuscript only before acceptance, through a written request with the reason. Withdrawal of a published article is not permitted. A published article can only be corrected or retracted.

How notices are handled. Every correction, expression of concern, and retraction notice is published as a separate, freely accessible item. It identifies the title and authors of the article concerned, states who is issuing the notice, explains the reason, and gives the date. The notice and the original article are linked in both directions, and the article metadata is updated accordingly.

Retracted articles are not deleted from the journal website or archive. They remain available and are clearly marked as “Retracted” on the article page, in the PDF full text, and in the metadata. Removal of content is considered only in exceptional circumstances, such as legal reasons or content that poses a serious risk to the public or to research participants.

Post-Publication Discussion

The journal welcomes constructive discussion of published articles. Readers may submit comments, questions, or concerns about a published article to the editorial office at [email protected], stating the article title and DOI.

  1. The editors screen comments for relevance, substance, and civility. Comments that are abusive, off-topic, or promotional are not considered.
  2. Substantive comments are forwarded to the authors, who are invited to respond within 30 days.
  3. Where appropriate, the comment and the authors’ response are published as a letter to the editor and linked to the original article.
  4. If a comment raises concerns about the validity of the findings or about misconduct, it is handled under Allegation of Research Misconduct, and may lead to a correction, an expression of concern, or a retraction.

Complaints and Appeals

Authors, reviewers, and readers may complain about the editorial process, the conduct of the editors or staff, or the handling of a manuscript. Authors may appeal against a decision to reject their manuscript.

  • How to submit. Send the complaint or appeal to [email protected] with the subject line “Complaint” or “Appeal”, giving the manuscript title and ID and a clear explanation of the grounds.
  • Grounds for appeal. An appeal is considered only if the author can show a procedural error, a clear misunderstanding of the work by the editor or reviewers, or provides substantial new evidence. Disagreement with reviewers’ opinions alone is not sufficient.
  • Handling. The editorial office acknowledges receipt within 7 working days. The Editor-in-Chief reviews the case, and may consult the editorial board or obtain an additional independent review. If the complaint or appeal concerns the Editor-in-Chief, it is handled by another member of the editorial board appointed by the publisher.
  • Response. The journal aims to respond with a reasoned decision within 30 days. The outcome of an appeal is final, and each decision can be appealed only once.
  • Unresolved complaints. Complaints about the journal that remain unresolved may be referred to the publisher, the Department of Mathematics Education, UIN Sultanah Nahrasiyah Lhokseumawe.

Ethical Oversight

Research involving human participants, including students, teachers, and school staff, must follow recognized ethical principles, including respect for participants’ autonomy, confidentiality, and welfare.

  • Authors must state in the Methods section that ethical approval was obtained from an appropriate institutional committee, and give the approval number and year. If approval was not required, authors must state the reason, for example an exemption granted by the institution.
  • Authors must state how informed consent was obtained. For research involving minors, the manuscript must also state that permission from the school and consent from parents or guardians were obtained.
  • Participants’ identities must be protected. Names, images, and other identifying details must not be published without explicit written consent.

The editors may request evidence of approval or consent, and may reject or retract a manuscript if the research was conducted without appropriate ethical oversight.

Data and Reproducibility

Authors must include a data availability statement in the Declarations section, stating where the data supporting the findings can be accessed, or explaining why the data cannot be shared, for example because of participant privacy. Authors are encouraged to deposit research data, instruments, and test items in a recognized repository, and to describe the methods and analysis in enough detail for others to evaluate and replicate the work. The editors and reviewers may request access to the underlying data during review, and authors must retain the data for a reasonable period after publication.

Intellectual Property

Copyright and licensing of published articles are described in the Copyright Notice and the Open Access Policy. Authors are responsible for obtaining permission to reproduce any third-party material, such as figures, tables, test instruments, or copyrighted images, and for citing the source properly. Manuscripts that violate the copyright of others may be rejected, corrected, or retracted.

Related policies: Peer Review Process · Generative AI Policy · Author Fees · Editorial Team · Publisher